Yes, on Education - but arguably Private Education is a Luxury, and should be taxed as a Luxury. VAT exemption is usually from those things deemed necessary - and Education is necessary and its provided by the State because of that.
If private schools can charge 4- 10 times the funding per child that state schools get then why should we further subsidise them ? People should be free to use them but also free to pay for them. Only 1% of their pupils come from poorer backgrounds so that certainly doesn't sound charitable to me.
And then there'll be 0% from poorer backgrounds and the wealthy will continue to send their children to public schools anyway. Meanwhile, the additional funds raised from the VAT won't make a difference to the general public's lives.
That's not true. State school funding is around £7.5k per pupil, annually. You can send your child to private school for £10-15k per year. Yes there'll be a few exceptions that cost more but generally it's only double the amount, if that.
Surely if parents who can no longer afford to send their children to private school stopped buying coffees and avocado toast they would be able to afford it
@@evolassunglasses4673I’m calling some element of bs on this story at a store level pay tops out at 40k and is not hourly. Even in minimum wage say £15 an hour I doubt there would be enough hours in the week to cover most school fees plus living costs
Do private schools give the best possible education? Look at the people they have produced to run Britain? They run the banks, they run the water companies, they run Westminster with a few exceptions, and what have they done to make Britain a country worth living in? I don't see it. Obviously it give a much better advantage to public school student to rise to the best jobs in Britain but what have they done that a private school education is of benefit to Britain? The mess it's in now? The privilege they feel they are entitled to because they have plenty of money and can stand in the enclosure at Ascot with their top hats and the women in clothes they've spent a year agonising over? I don't see anything else. Nothing in health, nothing but raw sewage, nothing for other schools we all send out children to. The status of a nurse is so far down the financial order that a top executive at a bank is worth millions, how many lives do they save or put in the hours nurses do? It's so obvious this is all corruption and skewed value systems that I can only call it obnoxious. The horses at Ascot are treated like kings and certainly don't have to pull ploughs anymore. A nurse, a teacher, a water worker, a railway worker, you won't find any of them in the ring at Ascot. Maybe at a food bank because they can't get a house where they work, they are frozen out of an economy that doesn't serve anyone but the rich and powerful. Don't say Britain is broke, if it was they wouldn't be wearing top hats at Ascot.
@@DavidHeffron78 nurses and doctors who work long shifts are so long down om the pecking order. Even the junior doctors in private hospitals have a important and tough job.
Get rid off private education so rich are forced to make sure that all schools are great !! Private school are just another reminder of unequal society !!!
That will not happen. Successful schools are where parents care and take part in the educational process, and I know it is not politic, but most working class parents see teachers as a babysitting service more than a teaching one.
Why should people not be allowed to spend money where they want? If we're banning spending money to better educate your kids, then we better ban air travel to make the climate better, ban all cars other than cheap A to B cars in case people are offended by Audis, and ban Waitrose and M&S so more people shop at Lidl and Aldi. What you're proposing is communism, which just serves to make those at the top of government wildly rich while everyone else struggles along in misery.
I've heard James before saying he had to send his kid the private school as His father would turn in his grave if he didn't. Toffs like Mog and the like could use exactly the same argument.
Always no.1 or 2 in the world for educational attainment too. Who would have thought, making decision makers have a direct interest in state schooling could be a positive thing?
THIS IS NOT TRUE. IN FINLAND PRIVATE EDUCATION IS VERY LEGAL AND THERE ARE PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN FINLAND. THE LAW YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS ONE WHICH PREVENTS PRIVATE SCHOOLS FROM MAKING A PROFIT AS SUCH THERE AREN'T TOO MANY, THE STATE ACTUALLY SUBSIDIES THE SCHOOL FEES.
@@jongalloway726 thanks for the correction 👍. So it’s basically private provision of state school places. Isn’t that more like an academy setup rather than a public school though?
Being extremely wealthy means having the ability to afford anything you want but still finding a way of getting less wealthy people to pay for it for you via the back door. They get all that they want AND get to hang on to their money! Everybody wins! Well, everybody who matters anyway.
I went to a progressive private boarding school. I came from a South London working class background. I was lucky because I managed to get a grant from the LEA, who recommended a list of schools, all private. My parents (and I) accepted it because we saw it as an opportunity I'd never get again. So ... yes. If you can afford private education then fine. Parents want the best for their children. However, the class system still exists in this country ... money talks, well, shouts! So ... if you can afford private fees then you could afford VAT. That VAT could go towards improving the national school system in order to make it competitive with the private sector. Public schools, though, are the preserve of the 'ruling classes'. This is demonstrated by their achievement of charity status.
Having spent the 2nd half of my teaching career in a private school, I can tell you that it's not actually as black and white as you suggest. It is true that most of the parents could manage the increase relatively comfortably but there is a significant minority of families where they really do sacrifice much to prioritise their children's education due to the awful state alternatives in their area and for whom this would be the proverbial final straw. It would be enough to push many back into the state schools already at bursting point and barely coping.
'If you can afford private fees, you can afford the VAT?'. That is a ridiculous statement, and of course does not apply to everybody. The sole trader plumber I use has one child and chooses to send him to private school. He works 6 days a week and does without many other things that people take for granted, like holidays. It is his choice as he thinks it is important. He told me that he is now having to take his child and out. Just imagine the disruption to the child! Unbelievable.
@@simonjess8471 The real problem is the state schools should not have ended up in the state they are currently in, that way people who frankly have no business enrolling their children in private education don't feel as if they have to.
From Finland. To me, if the difference between the schools was merely to do with quality of education, the problem would not be massive. From, and correct me if I'm wrong, what I understand the problem arises when society automatically values one over the other without looking at the individuals. Also the networking. You have had this system so long that it's concentrated too much old money into these places.
With respect, I don’t think you appreciate how underfunded state schools are in the UK. I got asked if I could bring in any spare pens and pencils to my sons school recently because they were running out
@@arp_909 ok yeah. Sounds abysmal. I do find it difficult to understand at times. People I knew there were mostly at uni or older folk. I try not to judge the situation from TH-cam, but should propably get back in touch with the locals.
If self employed private tutors have to charge VAT, but private schools are exempt, that's even more reason to end the advantage the schools have, as it's manipulation of the market, in favour of specific suppliers. Which conservatives are supposed to be against.
Firstly, no they do not, so long as the subject is one taught in universities or schools. Secondly, how many self-employed tutors get over the VAT threshold of £90,000 per annum. I could count them on no hands. Try a bit harder.
I went to public school. Even if I had the money I would never send my children to public school because children from public schools find the real world harder to relate to. When you see children in state schools having to share 7 glue sticks between 30 for a WHOLE year, you know that state schools are really really struggling and we NEED to invest in all our children. In my experience I don't feel private schools share their facilities in such a way that makes a real difference to those in state schools- they just offer crumbs and crumbs do not offer dignity and advancement. They are just a cop out clause for maintaing charitable status.
@@chatham43 I went to public school many many moons ago so I've no idea what the situation was then I'm afraid and I couldn't afford to pay the vat. It wasn't my choice to be sent away sadly. I didn't have any choice and my parents died many years ago.
That won't do anything to address the massive anti social behaviour problems in many schools. I'm in my 50s and everyone I know who was a teacher has left the profession because of this issue
@@BadlydrawnBen yeah, it´s not only a case of money but that doesn´t mean money isn´t important. Also, one issue is that there is a lot of teacher rotation because the wages aren´t that great compared to the qualifications, i.e lots of teachers could easily get a job as a computer programmer or as a bank manager.
No issue at all with private schools - I've worked for both sectors in my time as a teacher. But I don't think private schools need benefits/hand outs from our government. But then I also don't think mps on over 80k a year need to be claiming benefits/receiving hand outs either.
MPs should be in specially built/selected council flats. They would take up the entire block of flats. They’d have the best security at their residence as well. This way we don’t have to pay for exorbitantly priced second homes in London.
He’s done well for himself but still recognises his privileges and advocates for better outcomes for the majority of people. I wish there were more “Champagne socialists”, the world would be a much better place.
i payed top rate income tax last year. but I've always supported politicians who want to increase my tax burden, while I'm still paying the legal minimum tax under the current system and not a penny more... Does that make me a hypocrite?
I don't know if that's a weird view, but private schools seem to produce people that are "weltfremd" - i.e. decoupled from reality. If rich people would have to go in schools that everyone else goes, maybe it would improve their worldviews
Everyone here is missing the point. James is SO anti middle class, he rouses the working class to eat the middle class, not the rich. Education is the one thing that can close the gap between working and upper class. Those who can just about afford private schools are the bridge between the two classes. Making it harder for the middle class to send their kids to private school only kills the chance of a middle class existing, and makes the gap between the upper class and everyone else larger. In order to have a strong economy to pay for things like welfare and income tax breaks for lower earners, you literally need a middle class. They are the ones who pay tax. Private education will always exist and the mega rich will fund it. You can't tax your way to fairness in education. You need to make private education as accessible as possible, rather than as elitist as possible. All this policy does is make the pool of highly educated students even more restricted to the wealthiest in society and increases the current wealth inequality in this country.
@actually Absolutely. With no smart phones or games consoles or wide screen TVs or expensive trainers. It's the result of 14 years of tory neglect and misrule!😂
James, it’s humbug. I can’t be a hypocrite because I admit to the hypocritical behaviour is just nonsense. I am not a bank robber because I admit to robbing a bank I love your show and your books but you have lost me on this one
😂 what a silly take on this matter. Not all pupils learn at the same rate. So inside a state school you'll still have advanced curriculums/courses. Opportunity equality can be addressed based on intellectual capacity in a more comprehensive format, but abolishing public or private schools is not the way. You would create a norm that stigmatizes scholastic excellence. Regressive approaches to inequality will just be another hurdle to those who won't conform to it.
I want the complete closure of private schools and the raising of standards for all in the state system, that equipment and facilities are available to all. The biggest lie is in regards to charitable status where one child is offered some sort of bursary and the school gets a tax break valued at maybe thousands despite the free child having attended in the 1400s.
A cohort of kids from not very well off parents but who care about education more than anything else are going to be affected by this, not the Rees-Moggs.
Private school fees have gone up by thousands in recent years and yet the parents have somehow managed to deal with that and keep their precious children away from the riff raff. It is ridiculous to suggest that paying VAT is what will push them all over the financial edge.
So the argument is that he will send his children to a private school but will be happy for private schooling to end. But given that he knows full well that it will not end then how can that be a morally superior position?
As a parent you want the best future for your children, and private education in the UK is pretty objectively better then public education. So you if you can afford to send your children to a private school, you should. For their sake. And at the same time you can believe that this divide should not exist and that the children of rich people, who by virtue of being born into wealth will already statistically do better in life, don't need to have the ability to buy further advantages by buying a better education. Everyone should have the same access to the same quality of education, regardless of wealth. But so long as that gab exists you own it to your children to give them the best chance in their future life. To do otherwise is not more 'moral'. it is damaging your child's future for your own ego.
@@TheDeadnaughty If you choose to use your disproportionate wealth to privately educate your children (having been privately educated yourself) you are in no positon to take on the grievances of any oppressed individuals or groups and fire them back at ordinary folk for a living on a national radio show. Parents are doing the best for their children by buying enormous gas-guzzling 4x4s, for example, but the externalities for the rest of society are negative, and James OBrien has made a career moaning about these nagative externalities. Claiming you "believe the divide should not exist" but then exploiting that divide for your own personal gain is not the actions of a moral person, and equates to claiming its all someone else's responsibility to fix everything, while I make a career moaning about the inequality of it all. He makes me puke.
Which country has the best education system on the planet? Finland. What have the Finnish done to make that happen? Shut down private schools and made all their teachers have a masters degree in their state schools.
How to justify your cognitive dissonance....by saying one thing and doing another. Private schools proliferate the class system....where the oligarchy get to hoard more billions while the food banks & homeless go without the basic necessities of life.
@@Matt-km7yk james dismantled his own position at the end of the video. in his comparison between himself and his partner and alastair campbell and fiona millar.
We sent our eldest son to the Military Boarding school in Dover that is massively subsidised for serving personell. He had been predicted 4 GCSEs D to G. He came away with 13 GCSEs A* to C. The approach to education was utterly different to that of state school. There was no magic wand, no cheating, it was all down to the size of the classes, the quality of the teachers and the effort that was put into helping our son. We have no regrets. We could not have afforded the full cost, and my wife was a Major in the British Army.
There shouldn't be private schools, Education should be free for all. In some of the best countries of the world education up to and including University is provided free. Education shouldn't be a for-profit industry, Public/State schools should be cathedrals of Education and not just academic education but real genuine practical vocational education. As not every learner learns the same and a pure Academic education isn't the only type of education. Very similar to the Fins and other European countries were private education just isn't a thing.
But if someone can afford to send their kid to a private school then they should be allowed. How about we improve public school without infringing on private schools.
If you got what you wanted James and abolished private schools you would probable pay for a private tutor. Either way you would use your wealth to give your kids an advantage over the less advantaged
I want a hybrid Toyota Yaris, but my wife forced me to buy a 4 litre Porsche Cayenne to keep the kids safe. I'm not a hypocrite though, because I did say once that Porsche Cayennes shoud be banned. So I can maintain my moral superiority and continue lecturing poor people who drive old Fiestas that their cars are too polluting and dangerous.
I have no idea how many people of ordinary working class work for private schools, the one I work at employs close to 200. Then you have the contractors that find work and the local shops the kids and parents use, local economies will suffer I have no issue with private schools closing but something needs to be put in place to protect those that rely on them in the local area.
Have never liked the idea of private schools. When I first learnt about their existence in secondary school I thought it was absurd. No one is taught the same really because we all have different teachers, but it's not just about that, it's about the name of the school not the education. Remove the privileges and maybe the rich will actually care about the country's education and not just their kids...
I don't completely understand the outrage. The schools should not have had soecial status like vat free in the first place. How did that happen with so many privat school pupils running the country....? Oops, i guess that answers the question. Similar to the watering down by the House of Lords of lease property reform. 60% put tgrir private financial intetest as Property Management. Of course private schools can exist and parents can pay the full terms, with no favour. Why? Because the country provides and schools already. If any parent wants their child to leave the state provided system, then they can pay, with no favour.
We should not have these terrible luxuries, because I simply cannot help myself from helping myself to them. The shame it causes me! When someone starts the headline with the words 'I am not a hypocrite', it is a fair bet that you may need to steel yourself for a large dose of hypocrisy.
Because he's trying to justify something he secretly knows is BS. If he were in the right, he wouldn't have to undertake such mental gymnastics to defend his position.
Even if it is a direct concequence of labour’s policy….so what! The country doesn’t have infinite resources so they have to cut what doesn’t serve majority of people, which is public schools. I have nothing against public schools. If I could afford it I would send my son to one because, I know it will give him an advantage.
I don't have any kids, but I regularly use a credit card, but I think that they should not exist, because they allow too many people to get into a financial mess.
Basically, you think we need a nanny state because the people cannot be trusted. Perhaps we should not be able to buy alcohol, because daft John got in his car on Saturday after 10 pints and had a crash? Or should we maybe just take some personal responsibility?
I disagree. Tomorrow you will say if you pay for private medical care. You will say one should be on taxed on it It is one’s choice not for you or government to penalise me for making a choice. You or the government have no idea about what sacrifices I made to do that for my child
His basic proposition is questionable here. In what sense, and how far, can we claim private schools as a whole to be 'an advantage'? It is certainly not a given across the board, and the idea that, because so many Cabinet ministers went to Eton, the idea of advantage is proved, is deeply skewed: most private school kids go on to ordinary careers like everyone else.
Your argument is wrong. Fairness is not about access; it is about quality. The private market simply produces better quality output because it is more efficient than the public sector. To make it fair, public schools should become better, which would automatically make private schools unnecessary. But Labour, and your argument, is about fairness in access. The government’s job to be fair, as you claim, should focus on better outcomes. Guess what? Not everyone from public or private schools will end up in the best-paying jobs. Being Prime Minister is not a well-paid job at all. If you want to make it fair, focus on quality, not on increasing barriers to high-quality outputs. That is simply immoral, lazy, and unfair anti competition practice that sells before election.
It’s the same in Australia. State / Government schools have a smaller share of the funding pie whereas some of the wealthiest private schools in the country are subsidised by taxpayer dollars to build Olympic class sporting centres and auditoriums. King Charles attended Timbertop, Geelong Grammar School in the 1960’s and it is a beneficiary of so many tax breaks. It was also the school of Australia’s wealthiest including Rupert Murdoch so they aren’t hard up for a quid yet our tax dollars go to supporting them.
Or do what Norway does and have no private schools at all and focus on best in practice and funding of public schools. It forces the 'well to do' to ensure all schools are of the highest level. As the years progress, we will see Norway punching well above their weight as all their people will be very well-educated and recognise their value. What are the rest of us laggards doing!? Why not scour the world for the best policies/scenarios/practices and implement them all locally? Because a well-educated and valued citizenry would immediately seek to close garbage media (*cough* Murdoch!) and likely never again vote for a Tory government and their inadequate and awful politics.
A thought-provoking monologue, James. I describe my politics as slightly right-of-centre but am a lifelong critic of the role private schools play in British society. As they disadvantage 90% of the population - I cannot think of any other aspect of our society which has such a wide-reaching impact. The difference with privately-funded, after-school tuition is that children benefiting from this are still attending the same schools as everyone else. Where, I suspect, we disagree is that I think abolishing private schools should be a right-of-centre policy. I don't subscribe to the left's to-each-according-to-their-needs philosophy. My better Britain would be more meritocratic, so what people get out of society is a reflection of what they put in. Private schools, like inherited wealth, undermine this as some people are given a head start, which they didn't earn.
There is a simple moral principle here. It costs the taxpayer about £8000 per year to educate a state school student. If we take into account all the tax breaks and grants etc. that are given to private schools, the taxpayer pays £25000 per pupil per year to educate a private school student. Let that sink in and tell me private schools should keep their tax breaks!
Some private schools actually do operate as charities. One that I taught in had low salaries and high levels of SEN pupils who had FLED from the state sector owing to the abusive lack of provision for their needs or because they had been bullied and not protected, etc. etc. State schools in my experience as a teacher in several and parent of children in several are quite often they are run by people with narrow perspectives, whio have axes to grind, and vested interests in the institution, such as career progression, and so fixated on 'outcomes', 'performance', and the fallacious educational approaches associated with these notions, that they are as totally unresponsive in fact to individual needs as they are responsive in the lip service they pay to them. My SLT salary was half of the equivalent of that in the state sector, too. Like other people with public school backgrounds, you seem, myopically and ignorantly, to think all private schools are the same. There's a whole tradition of dissenting or socio-economically disadnavantaged having to create educational paths and establishments outside the mainstream - from autodidacticism to what were sometime illegal schools. Alexander Pope, for instance, was Catholic, and excluded from the universities that then existed (only two in England owing to Oxbridge's resistance to new ones - Manchester tried to have one in the C17th but was blocked by these vested interests). Dissenting academies and Methodist schools are another example. Several UK schools (only one left now, I think) were founded by exiled Moravians, driven out of Central Europe by the Catholics in the Counter-reformation. There is little or no freedom or innovation or creative in our centralised and top-down education system. Abolish the public schools by all means. But think hard before you hit the many smaller schools that cater for a wider public. These will be the first to collapse with the imposition of VAT. You make no mention eithert of the ghettoisation of state schools, where the rich get better schools than the poor. because they can afford houses in the better schools' catchment areas. Or the gap in VA between certain boroughs in London and the SE and those elsewhere. The level of knowledge about the history of education in this country seems to be close to zero. Partly, I guess, because so many influential people are public school educated and metrocentric and see education in simplistic, binary terms. There's a whole world out there this is so much more complex and interesting than their limited and self-referential perceptions allow. What might seem fair to one person from one perspective might seem like discrimination, exclusion, social determinism or a narrowing of experience and hope to another.
If the UK were still a member of the EU then VAT couldn't be charged. It's an EU law. Labour might regard it as a Brexit benefit. Of course, these schools are businesses so they should charge VAT. The wider question is what their business is. Private schools are often regarded as providing education. I would say that what rich people are actually paying for is the ability for their children to meet and network with other children of the wealthy. To build networks of the privileged to help each other out with jobs and opportunities later in life. There might be a defence if private education was selling education. In fact it is selling a lifetime of privileged access and networking. Teaching kids how the rarified atmosphere of the upper classes works and how to behave. How to apply for the top universities. How to make arguments and present yourself as having superior knowledge with no doubt about your abilities. The complete confidence that is needed to be a leader. An education designed to provide the empire with district commissioners in remote parts of Kenya. Unfortunately, there is no empire in the 21st century, so the training has to do something else. Today it provides the Cabinet with the arrogant and self-assured.
All the issues you mention are none issues if you’re talking about equality of opportunity seriously. It would have to start at the massive inequality of wealth. If that inequality doesn’t exist the problems with some people being able to pay for more don’t exist.
There's kind of a 'reality check' moment here. It is hypocrisy even if you believe you're justified in being hypocritical. "I believe that the rich and the powerful should not be able to claim advantages; nevertheless, as a rich and powerful man [who is paid to circulate my opinions to a large audience with the assistance of a research and production team because of my advantages], I am going to claim the advantages I have because of being rich and powerful, as I don't want them to fall behind the even richer and more powerful people." The thin justification is "since, you know, the people at the top would be even more limited otherwise!" - this isn't untrue; but what you want is the 'get out of jail free card' which does not really exist. The cliche 'there is no such thing as ethical consumption' alas holds true. The ethical stance is to acknowledge the very hypocrisy, to embrace the fact that your subjective thoughts and actions nevertheless are part of the ideological machinery which justifies the maintenance of the status quo. Can you avoid doing so? Probably not! But the perpetuation of the liberal 'guiltless' justification is precisely what allows things to continue, since the pristine world of ideals oils the gears of society's machinery. The only ethical stance is actually to accept you are, necessarily a hypocrite, even if you happen to be doing what is closest to the right thing which you can conceive of: to remind everyone of how you are in a society where we're all compromised from the get-go, including self-righteous radio presenters. I expect this is screaming into the void, but I was bored enough to type it out.
I teach at an International (Private) school in asia. The makeup of the country im in mean that certain parents will clamour yo get their kids into these schools as they see the state education as lackluster at best. If their kids want to do well, by that it means study at universities overseas, they MUST go to an international school, as well as in alot of cases after school tuition. I find it a very cultural thing in Asia, maybe far more than Europe.
How do private schools look to people from outside of UK?" It looks like UK is stuck in 1700s. Where any idea of meritocracy and egalitarianism is systematically discouraged and hindered at every step.
There will need to be private state-run schools for those serving the country overseas. Also after sorting private schools can James move on go evening up chances for non-Oxbridge graduates. Why does a law degree, classics or other favoured degrees for Oxbridge types make them suitable for getting to the "top". More ordinaries required.
I would be prepared to speculate that the exclusivity gap could be balanced out. So on the one hand, if the number of people coming from private schools to occupy top jobs becomes only 5%, (half of what it was, for argument’s sake) then on the other hand wouldn't there now be a net 5% shortage of people in the top jobs? Or could all the top jobs become ever more exclusive?
Having been a border at a public school more than 50 years ago and living on the Continent I have the following comments to make. Because classes are smaller, teachers generally better, duscipline tougher and "problem" children less common ( because of their similar social backgrounds) the chances of gaining better results continue to be infinitely better in public schools than in state schools. That's why parents pay for private education. The downside of a private school sector as large as in Britain is that it creates elitism and a priviledged class that tend to primarily interact both socially and at work. Perhaps "background" is no longer valued as highly as in the past but looking at it from the outside it seems that one of the reasons why Britain has fallen behind economically is that having attended the "right" school is often still regarded more highly than qualifications or skills. On the Continent there are very few private schools so their "influence"is minimal. Generally the British education system is underfunded as evidenced by the fact that "in my time" universities were free (as they are by and large in Europe or small contributions are charged)wheras today fees in Britain are substantial, again making it easier for the children of well heeled folks to study. A complex issue indeed particularly well off foreigners still seem to regard British public schools as the best education available.
Sending your child to a random private school has no advantage. Studies have shown that it is the influence of the parents in extracurricular study that makes a difference. But sending your child to a few elite private schools does have an advantage due to the networking of that system, in both the people and higher education. And that is where the big con is, with the parents spending big money to send a child to a random private school thinking that is going to serve as an advantage, when it won't. I think you have two solutions to the problem. Firstly, get rid of all private education which would encourage better standards and investment in state schools - to an extent, as some wealthy people would send their children abroad for private education. Or secondly, keep just a few elite schools that are funded by the state, and those places are given out based on the merit of the students and not based on the standing and wealth of the parents - that sounds like a fair solution to an awkward problem, that would serve the best students getting the best education.
Yes it will prevent certain families sending their kids to private schools. There are two types of people who go to private school- those who can afford it and those who can’t. The elephant in the room is that a lot of state education teaching and policy is demonstrably awful. Some private school teaching is too. Abysmal. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been a part of it for 30 years. Don’t reply or lambast me. I’ve turned reply notifications off.
I dont think acknowledging youre a hypocrite negates the hypocrisy. I dont blame you at all for what you do, no ones perfect and you want to give them an advantage. Fair enough. You also think private schools should be abolished. Also fair enough. But sending your kids to a school you want to abolish is hypocritical.
In my opinion you are a hypocrite James O'brien because you don't really want a fairer society. You are not prepared to work towards a fairer society if it costs you or your children anything. What kind of example are you setting your children do you think? That hypocrisy is ok if you can argue your way around it. It's like selling arms to a country that you know will use them illegally and saying will someone will sell them those weapons, it might as well be us who benefit from it... Hypocrite.
It's never been fare,, I had 7 brothers & 5 sisters ,1 bread winner. I know that at least 7 of them should have gone too grammar school, but mum & dad couldn't pay for uniforms. " A" stream and top of the class, Top of the school some of them.
I'm not sure about this one! If people have the money, then they should be able to buy a private education for their child if that's their choice. The way to counter the imbalance is to make state schools equally educationally excellent , so there's no disadvantage! Banning it simply forces private education to morph into something else, or go overseas!
Private education is a business. If a private school isn't successful or popular, it begins to lose pupils and so eventually doesn't make a profit ( even if that profit is called a " surplus" it's still the same thing ) and eventually the school closes unless new owners or managers take over and turn it around. This happens all the time although we rarely hear about it as the private schools that close are usually small and fairly unknown. The same logic applies to, say, any other service businesses which charge VAT by law. A private school sells a service so it should pay or collect business taxes just like any other service business. Thats it.
Is the state school system not already operating at above capacity and putting even more students in an already stressed system is not got make things better/Quality of education will get even worse, and it will be unfair for children who want to learn and put in the hard graft being stuck in classes with children who don’t care. I think public/private schools is one of the few USPs Britain still has and should be kept. But we should be taxing the private/public schools with revenue over a specific threshold is fair but there should be the caveat that it cannot be tagged on to the evermore ridiculous school fees.
All Public Schools should become Academies, some with the ability to raise small fees for specialisations, as long as scholarships are given. Our Private Schools often offer excellent education, it'd be a shame to lose them altogether, but they need to be more accessible for pupils of all backgrounds.
I was brought up in the lower end of things, and learning difficulties would have probably held me back in a private school, though you get better quality of learning in private because you get what you pay
What if we thought about fairness as - improving all school - so we didn’t need private schools! But that’s not the reason private schools exist? It’s all about status and power ! There is no argument for private schools.
By all means have a private school, but no money from the government at all! If they do accept money from the tax payers, it should by law have to follow the national curriculum! You can't have it both ways!
Why would anyone be Envious of kids who are controlled by their parents and put in a bubble and turn them into silly, posh, social climbers with no ability to relate to or function in the real world outside of their small privilege circles. Just like in state schools you get kids that do extremely well and get to go to higher education and the top unis anyway and kids who mess about or just don't fit into the system for whatever reason and don't do as well in exams etc. Difference is they don't have a smogasboard of options after school for their adult life, where as the public school 'Joker' still has all those deep high social connections and can even become a politician, Mayor or PM just by being a 'character'.
Because those kids have no realisation that they're 'silly, posh, social climbers with no ability to relate...' Ever heard of the expression 'ignorance is bliss'? Being fully-aware of the world, as I am, is as often a curse as it is a blessing. Plus, studies have shown that privately-educated kids, who admittedly exist in a bit of a bubble, are endowed with a sense of confidence that the rest of us lack. What's the point of being aware of everything, and having the full weight of the world on one's shoulders, if it only makes one miserable? Surely it's better to be confident, albeit arrogant and aloof, and successfuly and happy.
The problem is not that some people send their children to private schools per se, the problem is that the the average private school fees are over £20,000 per pupil per per year, and the average spend per pupil in the state sector is less than £8,000 per year. If we spent the same per pupil per year in the state sector as is spent on private school pupils, I don't think I would have any objections to private schools, or at least my objections would not be so severe as to over-ride the "freedom and choice" arguments for allowing them.
The average private school according to mr google is £15k so 3k of vat. £8 a day. If your a high earner which the chances are you are if your kids are in private school its hardly goikg to hurt. Maybe trade in your chelsea tractor for a normal car will save that on the fuel.
complicit in manufacturing consent for personal gain & notoriety. You are a milker of news. you know very well of the realities but will prolong it for viewership's that are payable in cash for views.
Education opportunities to pursue a higher standard should be based on merit alone. And only after the first seven years. And internships should be illegal with a custodial sentence for any offenders. Within 10 years we would see then benefits.
Finland has one of the best school systems in the world. One of the reasons is because private schools are banned. Everyone mixes with each other, the rich grow up with the poor and they all look out for each other in later life. By having private schools you are declaring that there are two standards of education and that only the rich are allowed to have the higher standard. A policy like that tells the world that we, as a country, do not want all of our children to be educated to the highest standard. That then raises the question: why? Why do we need the majority to be more uneducated? Because private schools are for politicians, public schools are for the voters who they can easily manipulate.
Finnish kids also start school at 7 not 5, they pay their teachers on par with accountants and lawyers, and only recruit top graduates. It's the gap in the quality of teachers that is the biggest differentiator.
VAT on private schools will also mean the end of the charitable work being done by those schools. Is it fair to those who receive that help? What is the cost of that? Have Labour calculated that?
Doesn't really sound like you think we should abolish private schools. You're not a bad person for sending your kids to private school, but you are deluded to think that is the most moral thing to do.
Private school fees should never have been VAT free in the first place. It's staggering to think that it's even a debate.
Should books be VAT free or no debate again?
VAT on education is illegal in the EU
@@thomasswift3563 Yes - finally a Brexit benefit - hahahahaha
Yes, on Education - but arguably Private Education is a Luxury, and should be taxed as a Luxury. VAT exemption is usually from those things deemed necessary - and Education is necessary and its provided by the State because of that.
@@thomasswift3563That's an awful policy written by the rich clearly. Even America doesn't allow people to write off private tuition on their taxes.
If private schools can charge 4- 10 times the funding per child that state schools get then why should we further subsidise them ? People should be free to use them but also free to pay for them.
Only 1% of their pupils come from poorer backgrounds so that certainly doesn't sound charitable to me.
And then there'll be 0% from poorer backgrounds and the wealthy will continue to send their children to public schools anyway. Meanwhile, the additional funds raised from the VAT won't make a difference to the general public's lives.
That's not true. State school funding is around £7.5k per pupil, annually. You can send your child to private school for £10-15k per year. Yes there'll be a few exceptions that cost more but generally it's only double the amount, if that.
@@BurnCKCyou missed the point, why should we subsidise them at all?
Surely if parents who can no longer afford to send their children to private school stopped buying coffees and avocado toast they would be able to afford it
My friend who struggles to pay for his kid works long hours, no holiday and works in Argos.
Assuming you're being sarcastic... 😂
@@evolassunglasses4673I’m calling some element of bs on this story at a store level pay tops out at 40k and is not hourly.
Even in minimum wage say £15 an hour I doubt there would be enough hours in the week to cover most school fees plus living costs
@evolassunglasses4673 I feel you may have completely missed the point 😂😂
I wonder how many parents had to stop sending their children to private school due to Liz Truss 🤔
Do private schools give the best possible education? Look at the people they have produced to run Britain? They run the banks, they run the water companies, they run Westminster with a few exceptions, and what have they done to make Britain a country worth living in? I don't see it. Obviously it give a much better advantage to public school student to rise to the best jobs in Britain but what have they done that a private school education is of benefit to Britain? The mess it's in now? The privilege they feel they are entitled to because they have plenty of money and can stand in the enclosure at Ascot with their top hats and the women in clothes they've spent a year agonising over? I don't see anything else. Nothing in health, nothing but raw sewage, nothing for other schools we all send out children to. The status of a nurse is so far down the financial order that a top executive at a bank is worth millions, how many lives do they save or put in the hours nurses do? It's so obvious this is all corruption and skewed value systems that I can only call it obnoxious. The horses at Ascot are treated like kings and certainly don't have to pull ploughs anymore. A nurse, a teacher, a water worker, a railway worker, you won't find any of them in the ring at Ascot. Maybe at a food bank because they can't get a house where they work, they are frozen out of an economy that doesn't serve anyone but the rich and powerful. Don't say Britain is broke, if it was they wouldn't be wearing top hats at Ascot.
Excellent point. They don’t give the best education. They give the best connections.
@@DavidHeffron78 nurses and doctors who work long shifts are so long down om the pecking order. Even the junior doctors in private hospitals have a important and tough job.
Get rid off private education so rich are forced to make sure that all schools are great !!
Private school are just another reminder of unequal society !!!
That’s been my stance for years(2decades now at least). You’re 100% on point.🎯
That will not happen. Successful schools are where parents care and take part in the educational process, and I know it is not politic, but most working class parents see teachers as a babysitting service more than a teaching one.
Why should people not be allowed to spend money where they want? If we're banning spending money to better educate your kids, then we better ban air travel to make the climate better, ban all cars other than cheap A to B cars in case people are offended by Audis, and ban Waitrose and M&S so more people shop at Lidl and Aldi. What you're proposing is communism, which just serves to make those at the top of government wildly rich while everyone else struggles along in misery.
@@NigelThompson-hb5jgperhaps working class people need better education then?
@@simonpaine2347 Yes - quite so. But it's not going to happen in this century, is it?
I've heard James before saying he had to send his kid the private school as His father would turn in his grave if he didn't. Toffs like Mog and the like could use exactly the same argument.
Benefits going to people who pay tax = Handouts.
Tax Breaks for wealthy people = Politics of Envy.
Politics of entitlement would be a better description
In Finnish schools, private education is illegal, but they all must follow the National Curriculum.
Always no.1 or 2 in the world for educational attainment too. Who would have thought, making decision makers have a direct interest in state schooling could be a positive thing?
THIS IS NOT TRUE. IN FINLAND PRIVATE EDUCATION IS VERY LEGAL AND THERE ARE PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN FINLAND. THE LAW YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS ONE WHICH PREVENTS PRIVATE SCHOOLS FROM MAKING A PROFIT AS SUCH THERE AREN'T TOO MANY, THE STATE ACTUALLY SUBSIDIES THE SCHOOL FEES.
We visited Finland last year, it's an absolutely beautiful country.
@@jongalloway726 thanks for the correction 👍. So it’s basically private provision of state school places. Isn’t that more like an academy setup rather than a public school though?
@@col.hertford9855 they still charge fees (not in the way academies tend to charge), they cannot make a profit so i would say no.
His logic is, if you admit you are a hypocrite then that absolves you from it.
Being extremely wealthy means having the ability to afford anything you want but still finding a way of getting less wealthy people to pay for it for you via the back door. They get all that they want AND get to hang on to their money! Everybody wins! Well, everybody who matters anyway.
Do they have a moral responsibility!?
Really you have a moral responsibility to make sure state schools are the best they can be.
@chris And both main parties are culpable without a doubt.
Quite, and that is what they should be concentrating on. Not gesture politics that will not help state schools one jot.
I went to a progressive private boarding school. I came from a South London working class background. I was lucky because I managed to get a grant from the LEA, who recommended a list of schools, all private. My parents (and I) accepted it because we saw it as an opportunity I'd never get again. So ... yes. If you can afford private education then fine. Parents want the best for their children.
However, the class system still exists in this country ... money talks, well, shouts! So ... if you can afford private fees then you could afford VAT. That VAT could go towards improving the national school system in order to make it competitive with the private sector.
Public schools, though, are the preserve of the 'ruling classes'. This is demonstrated by their achievement of charity status.
Having spent the 2nd half of my teaching career in a private school, I can tell you that it's not actually as black and white as you suggest. It is true that most of the parents could manage the increase relatively comfortably but there is a significant minority of families where they really do sacrifice much to prioritise their children's education due to the awful state alternatives in their area and for whom this would be the proverbial final straw. It would be enough to push many back into the state schools already at bursting point and barely coping.
'If you can afford private fees, you can afford the VAT?'. That is a ridiculous statement, and of course does not apply to everybody. The sole trader plumber I use has one child and chooses to send him to private school. He works 6 days a week and does without many other things that people take for granted, like holidays. It is his choice as he thinks it is important. He told me that he is now having to take his child and out. Just imagine the disruption to the child! Unbelievable.
@@simonjess8471 The real problem is the state schools should not have ended up in the state they are currently in, that way people who frankly have no business enrolling their children in private education don't feel as if they have to.
From Finland. To me, if the difference between the schools was merely to do with quality of education, the problem would not be massive. From, and correct me if I'm wrong, what I understand the problem arises when society automatically values one over the other without looking at the individuals. Also the networking. You have had this system so long that it's concentrated too much old money into these places.
With respect, I don’t think you appreciate how underfunded state schools are in the UK. I got asked if I could bring in any spare pens and pencils to my sons school recently because they were running out
@@arp_909 ok yeah. Sounds abysmal. I do find it difficult to understand at times. People I knew there were mostly at uni or older folk. I try not to judge the situation from TH-cam, but should propably get back in touch with the locals.
If self employed private tutors have to charge VAT, but private schools are exempt, that's even more reason to end the advantage the schools have, as it's manipulation of the market, in favour of specific suppliers.
Which conservatives are supposed to be against.
The vat threshold is £90 k. Tutors are not earning that much, so won't be charging vat.
Socialism for the wealthy, and Free Market capitalism for everyone else. That's the actual model.
Firstly, no they do not, so long as the subject is one taught in universities or schools. Secondly, how many self-employed tutors get over the VAT threshold of £90,000 per annum. I could count them on no hands. Try a bit harder.
I went to public school. Even if I had the money I would never send my children to public school because children from public schools find the real world harder to relate to. When you see children in state schools having to share 7 glue sticks between 30 for a WHOLE year, you know that state schools are really really struggling and we NEED to invest in all our children. In my experience I don't feel private schools share their facilities in such a way that makes a real difference to those in state schools- they just offer crumbs and crumbs do not offer dignity and advancement. They are just a cop out clause for maintaing charitable status.
@selina So you will pay the VAT which morally you should have been charged for your private education?
@@chatham43 I went to public school many many moons ago so I've no idea what the situation was then I'm afraid and I couldn't afford to pay the vat. It wasn't my choice to be sent away sadly. I didn't have any choice and my parents died many years ago.
Can't the government just fund state schools adequately through taxing the top 1% more. Wealth tax all billionaires as well.
That won't do anything to address the massive anti social behaviour problems in many schools. I'm in my 50s and everyone I know who was a teacher has left the profession because of this issue
But it's Liberalism that's destroying education. One kid I spoke to didn't even know what a woman was.
@@BadlydrawnBen So why does banning/ heavily taxing Private Schools address antisocial behaviour in schools, but funding the schools doesn't?
@@BadlydrawnBen yeah, it´s not only a case of money but that doesn´t mean money isn´t important. Also, one issue is that there is a lot of teacher rotation because the wages aren´t that great compared to the qualifications, i.e lots of teachers could easily get a job as a computer programmer or as a bank manager.
@@BadlydrawnBen What will help this issue?
In my experience, education actually begins........when we LEAVE school! 😂👍
No issue at all with private schools - I've worked for both sectors in my time as a teacher. But I don't think private schools need benefits/hand outs from our government. But then I also don't think mps on over 80k a year need to be claiming benefits/receiving hand outs either.
MPs should be in specially built/selected council flats. They would take up the entire block of flats. They’d have the best security at their residence as well. This way we don’t have to pay for exorbitantly priced second homes in London.
Socialism for the wealthy vs Free Market Capitalism for everyone else.
Exactly mate. That's how socialism works though. You spend other peoples money 😂
In Denmark there is no such thing as private education
O bore admits he's a champagne socialist though and through!
Ok babe whatever you say 😂
He’s done well for himself but still recognises his privileges and advocates for better outcomes for the majority of people. I wish there were more “Champagne socialists”, the world would be a much better place.
O'Brien having his cake and eating it.
Finland figured it out years ago, James. Your privilege is showing.
Oh, does he need to check his privilege? Go you /s
James usual way of excusing his hypocrisy
i payed top rate income tax last year. but I've always supported politicians who want to increase my tax burden, while I'm still paying the legal minimum tax under the current system and not a penny more... Does that make me a hypocrite?
I don't know if that's a weird view, but private schools seem to produce people that are "weltfremd" - i.e. decoupled from reality. If rich people would have to go in schools that everyone else goes, maybe it would improve their worldviews
Didnt James go to a fee paying boarding school? Pretty sure his kids do/did too.
Another case of do as i say, not as i do
Everyone here is missing the point. James is SO anti middle class, he rouses the working class to eat the middle class, not the rich. Education is the one thing that can close the gap between working and upper class. Those who can just about afford private schools are the bridge between the two classes. Making it harder for the middle class to send their kids to private school only kills the chance of a middle class existing, and makes the gap between the upper class and everyone else larger. In order to have a strong economy to pay for things like welfare and income tax breaks for lower earners, you literally need a middle class. They are the ones who pay tax. Private education will always exist and the mega rich will fund it. You can't tax your way to fairness in education. You need to make private education as accessible as possible, rather than as elitist as possible. All this policy does is make the pool of highly educated students even more restricted to the wealthiest in society and increases the current wealth inequality in this country.
**correction ** Not 14.7 million but 4.3 million UK children living in poverty. Think about that…
Your like trump making figures up eh . Sure many in poverty but behave unless you been everywhere counting everyone .
There's only 13 million children in the UK
That is more children than are in the UK!
but if they stopped eating avocado toast and watching netflix, oh, wait, sorry
@actually Absolutely. With no smart phones or games consoles or wide screen TVs or expensive trainers. It's the result of 14 years of tory neglect and misrule!😂
James, it’s humbug. I can’t be a hypocrite because I admit to the hypocritical behaviour is just nonsense. I am not a bank robber because I admit to robbing a bank
I love your show and your books but you have lost me on this one
😂 what a silly take on this matter.
Not all pupils learn at the same rate. So inside a state school you'll still have advanced curriculums/courses.
Opportunity equality can be addressed based on intellectual capacity in a more comprehensive format, but abolishing public or private schools is not the way.
You would create a norm that stigmatizes scholastic excellence. Regressive approaches to inequality will just be another hurdle to those who won't conform to it.
I want the complete closure of private schools and the raising of standards for all in the state system, that equipment and facilities are available to all. The biggest lie is in regards to charitable status where one child is offered some sort of bursary and the school gets a tax break valued at maybe thousands despite the free child having attended in the 1400s.
Your argument for why you send your kids to private school makes you no different from the Rees-Moggs of this world
A cohort of kids from not very well off parents but who care about education more than anything else are going to be affected by this, not the Rees-Moggs.
“A little bit hypocritical”??! Oh dear,little Jim just tying himself into knots.
James doesn’t agree with slavery but he will do it anyway to give his kids a better opportunity
If 6th Form Colleges have to pay VAT, which they do, then by all means get private schools to pay it as well
Private school fees have gone up by thousands in recent years and yet the parents have somehow managed to deal with that and keep their precious children away from the riff raff.
It is ridiculous to suggest that paying VAT is what will push them all over the financial edge.
So the argument is that he will send his children to a private school but will be happy for private schooling to end. But given that he knows full well that it will not end then how can that be a morally superior position?
As a parent you want the best future for your children, and private education in the UK is pretty objectively better then public education. So you if you can afford to send your children to a private school, you should. For their sake.
And at the same time you can believe that this divide should not exist and that the children of rich people, who by virtue of being born into wealth will already statistically do better in life, don't need to have the ability to buy further advantages by buying a better education.
Everyone should have the same access to the same quality of education, regardless of wealth. But so long as that gab exists you own it to your children to give them the best chance in their future life.
To do otherwise is not more 'moral'. it is damaging your child's future for your own ego.
@@TheDeadnaughty I agree with your sentiment I am merely stating that you cannot be morally superior over something that you know will not change.
@@TheDeadnaughty If you choose to use your disproportionate wealth to privately educate your children (having been privately educated yourself) you are in no positon to take on the grievances of any oppressed individuals or groups and fire them back at ordinary folk for a living on a national radio show.
Parents are doing the best for their children by buying enormous gas-guzzling 4x4s, for example, but the externalities for the rest of society are negative, and James OBrien has made a career moaning about these nagative externalities.
Claiming you "believe the divide should not exist" but then exploiting that divide for your own personal gain is not the actions of a moral person, and equates to claiming its all someone else's responsibility to fix everything, while I make a career moaning about the inequality of it all.
He makes me puke.
it’s hypocrisy. if you believe it’s amoral perhaps showing your children that you do what you say would be exemplary
The Matrix has you
Thats one of the shitest arguments ive ever heard
Went to public school, sends his kids to private school. Wants to ban them for everyone else. Text book example of gatekeeping?
Which country has the best education system on the planet? Finland. What have the Finnish done to make that happen? Shut down private schools and made all their teachers have a masters degree in their state schools.
I would point out that the Tories austerity has closed down so many more private schools than VAT ever will
A leftist, socialist, communist being shown as a hypocrite? i dont believe it lol..
Plenty of people move house to be in the catchment area of a better school ! its the poorer version of private school !
Is anyone ever going to talk about bringing back grammar schools?
Sorry mate but I can't agree with you on this in any way, we need a more equal society not unequal society based on wealth
How to justify your cognitive dissonance....by saying one thing and doing another.
Private schools proliferate the class system....where the oligarchy get to hoard more billions while the food banks & homeless go without the basic necessities of life.
what you said there doesn’t work i’m afraid.
Care to explain?
i agree if you really believe they should be abolished . it’s a bit of an excuse …….. blah blah
@@juliecraig6770 yes. i believe they should be abolished.
@@Matt-km7yk james dismantled his own position at the end of the video. in his comparison between himself and his partner and alastair campbell and fiona millar.
@@TheMassiveBadgerAHA Ah, I assumed you were taking a pro-private school, anti-VAT stance, but I can see I was incorrect :)
Maybe these parents of private school kids could just cancel their Netflix subscriptions and visit Starbuck's less often?
No that's for poor people.
We sent our eldest son to the Military Boarding school in Dover that is massively subsidised for serving personell. He had been predicted 4 GCSEs D to G. He came away with 13 GCSEs A* to C. The approach to education was utterly different to that of state school. There was no magic wand, no cheating, it was all down to the size of the classes, the quality of the teachers and the effort that was put into helping our son. We have no regrets. We could not have afforded the full cost, and my wife was a Major in the British Army.
Consider if private school parents and politicians were campaigning for VAT removal now, how far would that go?
James hates inequality, then pays top dollar for it. Zero integrity.
There shouldn't be private schools, Education should be free for all. In some of the best countries of the world education up to and including University is provided free. Education shouldn't be a for-profit industry, Public/State schools should be cathedrals of Education and not just academic education but real genuine practical vocational education. As not every learner learns the same and a pure Academic education isn't the only type of education. Very similar to the Fins and other European countries were private education just isn't a thing.
But if someone can afford to send their kid to a private school then they should be allowed. How about we improve public school without infringing on private schools.
If you got what you wanted James and abolished private schools you would probable pay for a private tutor. Either way you would use your wealth to give your kids an advantage over the less advantaged
I want a hybrid Toyota Yaris, but my wife forced me to buy a 4 litre Porsche Cayenne to keep the kids safe.
I'm not a hypocrite though, because I did say once that Porsche Cayennes shoud be banned. So I can maintain my moral superiority and continue lecturing poor people who drive old Fiestas that their cars are too polluting and dangerous.
I have no idea how many people of ordinary working class work for private schools, the one I work at employs close to 200. Then you have the contractors that find work and the local shops the kids and parents use, local economies will suffer
I have no issue with private schools closing but something needs to be put in place to protect those that rely on them in the local area.
Have never liked the idea of private schools. When I first learnt about their existence in secondary school I thought it was absurd. No one is taught the same really because we all have different teachers, but it's not just about that, it's about the name of the school not the education.
Remove the privileges and maybe the rich will actually care about the country's education and not just their kids...
I don't completely understand the outrage.
The schools should not have had soecial status like vat free in the first place. How did that happen with so many privat school pupils running the country....? Oops, i guess that answers the question.
Similar to the watering down by the House of Lords of lease property reform. 60% put tgrir private financial intetest as Property Management.
Of course private schools can exist and parents can pay the full terms, with no favour. Why?
Because the country provides and schools already. If any parent wants their child to leave the state provided system, then they can pay, with no favour.
We should not have these terrible luxuries, because I simply cannot help myself from helping myself to them. The shame it causes me! When someone starts the headline with the words 'I am not a hypocrite', it is a fair bet that you may need to steel yourself for a large dose of hypocrisy.
He don’t half drag it out
Because he's trying to justify something he secretly knows is BS. If he were in the right, he wouldn't have to undertake such mental gymnastics to defend his position.
Even if it is a direct concequence of labour’s policy….so what! The country doesn’t have infinite resources so they have to cut what doesn’t serve majority of people, which is public schools. I have nothing against public schools. If I could afford it I would send my son to one because, I know it will give him an advantage.
"My position is the only logical one and the only moral one." Narcissist mantra of the day.
I don't have any kids, but I regularly use a credit card, but I think that they should not exist, because they allow too many people to get into a financial mess.
Basically, you think we need a nanny state because the people cannot be trusted. Perhaps we should not be able to buy alcohol, because daft John got in his car on Saturday after 10 pints and had a crash? Or should we maybe just take some personal responsibility?
@@simonjess8471 No problem guessing who you voted for!
Have a great day.
@@simonpaine2347 I am not sure that there is anything politically partisan about the concept of personal responsibility.
@@simonjess8471 I'm wasn't sure that there was anything about personal responsibility, in relation to private schools, but heh!
@@simonpaine2347LOL! Your original comment had nothing to do with private schools. Pretty bizarre complaint.
I disagree. Tomorrow you will say if you pay for private medical care. You will say one should be on taxed on it
It is one’s choice not for you or government to penalise me for making a choice. You or the government have no idea about what sacrifices I made to do that for my child
His basic proposition is questionable here. In what sense, and how far, can we claim private schools as a whole to be 'an advantage'? It is certainly not a given across the board, and the idea that, because so many Cabinet ministers went to Eton, the idea of advantage is proved, is deeply skewed: most private school kids go on to ordinary careers like everyone else.
Your argument is wrong. Fairness is not about access; it is about quality. The private market simply produces better quality output because it is more efficient than the public sector. To make it fair, public schools should become better, which would automatically make private schools unnecessary. But Labour, and your argument, is about fairness in access. The government’s job to be fair, as you claim, should focus on better outcomes. Guess what? Not everyone from public or private schools will end up in the best-paying jobs. Being Prime Minister is not a well-paid job at all. If you want to make it fair, focus on quality, not on increasing barriers to high-quality outputs. That is simply immoral, lazy, and unfair anti competition practice that sells before election.
It’s the same in Australia. State / Government schools have a smaller share of the funding pie whereas some of the wealthiest private schools in the country are subsidised by taxpayer dollars to build Olympic class sporting centres and auditoriums. King Charles attended Timbertop, Geelong Grammar School in the 1960’s and it is a beneficiary of so many tax breaks. It was also the school of Australia’s wealthiest including Rupert Murdoch so they aren’t hard up for a quid yet our tax dollars go to supporting them.
Or do what Norway does and have no private schools at all and focus on best in practice and funding of public schools. It forces the 'well to do' to ensure all schools are of the highest level. As the years progress, we will see Norway punching well above their weight as all their people will be very well-educated and recognise their value. What are the rest of us laggards doing!? Why not scour the world for the best policies/scenarios/practices and implement them all locally? Because a well-educated and valued citizenry would immediately seek to close garbage media (*cough* Murdoch!) and likely never again vote for a Tory government and their inadequate and awful politics.
A thought-provoking monologue, James. I describe my politics as slightly right-of-centre but am a lifelong critic of the role private schools play in British society. As they disadvantage 90% of the population - I cannot think of any other aspect of our society which has such a wide-reaching impact. The difference with privately-funded, after-school tuition is that children benefiting from this are still attending the same schools as everyone else.
Where, I suspect, we disagree is that I think abolishing private schools should be a right-of-centre policy. I don't subscribe to the left's to-each-according-to-their-needs philosophy. My better Britain would be more meritocratic, so what people get out of society is a reflection of what they put in. Private schools, like inherited wealth, undermine this as some people are given a head start, which they didn't earn.
There is a simple moral principle here. It costs the taxpayer about £8000 per year to educate a state school student. If we take into account all the tax breaks and grants etc. that are given to private schools, the taxpayer pays £25000 per pupil per year to educate a private school student.
Let that sink in and tell me private schools should keep their tax breaks!
How on earth did you come up with that calculation?
Wow that's some crazy logic 😂😂😂
Some private schools actually do operate as charities. One that I taught in had low salaries and high levels of SEN pupils who had FLED from the state sector owing to the abusive lack of provision for their needs or because they had been bullied and not protected, etc. etc. State schools in my experience as a teacher in several and parent of children in several are quite often they are run by people with narrow perspectives, whio have axes to grind, and vested interests in the institution, such as career progression, and so fixated on 'outcomes', 'performance', and the fallacious educational approaches associated with these notions, that they are as totally unresponsive in fact to individual needs as they are responsive in the lip service they pay to them. My SLT salary was half of the equivalent of that in the state sector, too. Like other people with public school backgrounds, you seem, myopically and ignorantly, to think all private schools are the same. There's a whole tradition of dissenting or socio-economically disadnavantaged having to create educational paths and establishments outside the mainstream - from autodidacticism to what were sometime illegal schools. Alexander Pope, for instance, was Catholic, and excluded from the universities that then existed (only two in England owing to Oxbridge's resistance to new ones - Manchester tried to have one in the C17th but was blocked by these vested interests). Dissenting academies and Methodist schools are another example. Several UK schools (only one left now, I think) were founded by exiled Moravians, driven out of Central Europe by the Catholics in the Counter-reformation. There is little or no freedom or innovation or creative in our centralised and top-down education system. Abolish the public schools by all means. But think hard before you hit the many smaller schools that cater for a wider public. These will be the first to collapse with the imposition of VAT. You make no mention eithert of the ghettoisation of state schools, where the rich get better schools than the poor. because they can afford houses in the better schools' catchment areas. Or the gap in VA between certain boroughs in London and the SE and those elsewhere. The level of knowledge about the history of education in this country seems to be close to zero. Partly, I guess, because so many influential people are public school educated and metrocentric and see education in simplistic, binary terms. There's a whole world out there this is so much more complex and interesting than their limited and self-referential perceptions allow. What might seem fair to one person from one perspective might seem like discrimination, exclusion, social determinism or a narrowing of experience and hope to another.
If the UK were still a member of the EU then VAT couldn't be charged. It's an EU law. Labour might regard it as a Brexit benefit.
Of course, these schools are businesses so they should charge VAT. The wider question is what their business is. Private schools are often regarded as providing education. I would say that what rich people are actually paying for is the ability for their children to meet and network with other children of the wealthy. To build networks of the privileged to help each other out with jobs and opportunities later in life.
There might be a defence if private education was selling education. In fact it is selling a lifetime of privileged access and networking. Teaching kids how the rarified atmosphere of the upper classes works and how to behave. How to apply for the top universities. How to make arguments and present yourself as having superior knowledge with no doubt about your abilities. The complete confidence that is needed to be a leader.
An education designed to provide the empire with district commissioners in remote parts of Kenya. Unfortunately, there is no empire in the 21st century, so the training has to do something else. Today it provides the Cabinet with the arrogant and self-assured.
All the issues you mention are none issues if you’re talking about equality of opportunity seriously. It would have to start at the massive inequality of wealth. If that inequality doesn’t exist the problems with some people being able to pay for more don’t exist.
There's kind of a 'reality check' moment here. It is hypocrisy even if you believe you're justified in being hypocritical. "I believe that the rich and the powerful should not be able to claim advantages; nevertheless, as a rich and powerful man [who is paid to circulate my opinions to a large audience with the assistance of a research and production team because of my advantages], I am going to claim the advantages I have because of being rich and powerful, as I don't want them to fall behind the even richer and more powerful people." The thin justification is "since, you know, the people at the top would be even more limited otherwise!" - this isn't untrue; but what you want is the 'get out of jail free card' which does not really exist. The cliche 'there is no such thing as ethical consumption' alas holds true. The ethical stance is to acknowledge the very hypocrisy, to embrace the fact that your subjective thoughts and actions nevertheless are part of the ideological machinery which justifies the maintenance of the status quo. Can you avoid doing so? Probably not! But the perpetuation of the liberal 'guiltless' justification is precisely what allows things to continue, since the pristine world of ideals oils the gears of society's machinery. The only ethical stance is actually to accept you are, necessarily a hypocrite, even if you happen to be doing what is closest to the right thing which you can conceive of: to remind everyone of how you are in a society where we're all compromised from the get-go, including self-righteous radio presenters.
I expect this is screaming into the void, but I was bored enough to type it out.
I teach at an International (Private) school in asia. The makeup of the country im in mean that certain parents will clamour yo get their kids into these schools as they see the state education as lackluster at best. If their kids want to do well, by that it means study at universities overseas, they MUST go to an international school, as well as in alot of cases after school tuition. I find it a very cultural thing in Asia, maybe far more than Europe.
How do private schools look to people from outside of UK?"
It looks like UK is stuck in 1700s. Where any idea of meritocracy and egalitarianism is systematically discouraged and hindered at every step.
There will need to be private state-run schools for those serving the country overseas. Also after sorting private schools can James move on go evening up chances for non-Oxbridge graduates. Why does a law degree, classics or other favoured degrees for Oxbridge types make them suitable for getting to the "top". More ordinaries required.
I would be prepared to speculate that the exclusivity gap could be balanced out. So on the one hand, if the number of people coming from private schools to occupy top jobs becomes only 5%, (half of what it was, for argument’s sake) then on the other hand wouldn't there now be a net 5% shortage of people in the top jobs?
Or could all the top jobs become ever more exclusive?
Having been a border at a public school more than 50 years ago and living on the Continent I have the following comments to make.
Because classes are smaller, teachers generally better, duscipline tougher and "problem" children less common ( because of their similar social backgrounds) the chances of gaining better results continue to be infinitely better in public schools than in state schools.
That's why parents pay for private education.
The downside of a private school sector as large as in Britain is that it creates elitism and a priviledged class that tend to primarily interact both socially and at work. Perhaps "background" is no longer valued as highly as in the past but looking at it from the outside it seems that one of the reasons why Britain has fallen behind economically is that having attended the "right" school is often still regarded more highly than qualifications or skills. On the Continent there are very few private schools so their "influence"is minimal. Generally the British education system is underfunded as evidenced by the fact that "in my time" universities were free (as they are by and large in Europe or small contributions are charged)wheras today fees in Britain are substantial, again making it easier for the children of well heeled folks to study.
A complex issue indeed particularly well off foreigners still seem to regard British public schools as the best education available.
Sending your child to a random private school has no advantage. Studies have shown that it is the influence of the parents in extracurricular study that makes a difference. But sending your child to a few elite private schools does have an advantage due to the networking of that system, in both the people and higher education. And that is where the big con is, with the parents spending big money to send a child to a random private school thinking that is going to serve as an advantage, when it won't. I think you have two solutions to the problem. Firstly, get rid of all private education which would encourage better standards and investment in state schools - to an extent, as some wealthy people would send their children abroad for private education. Or secondly, keep just a few elite schools that are funded by the state, and those places are given out based on the merit of the students and not based on the standing and wealth of the parents - that sounds like a fair solution to an awkward problem, that would serve the best students getting the best education.
Yes it will prevent certain families sending their kids to private schools. There are two types of people who go to private school- those who can afford it and those who can’t.
The elephant in the room is that a lot of state education teaching and policy is demonstrably awful. Some private school teaching is too. Abysmal. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been a part of it for 30 years. Don’t reply or lambast me. I’ve turned reply notifications off.
I dont think acknowledging youre a hypocrite negates the hypocrisy. I dont blame you at all for what you do, no ones perfect and you want to give them an advantage. Fair enough. You also think private schools should be abolished. Also fair enough. But sending your kids to a school you want to abolish is hypocritical.
In my opinion you are a hypocrite James O'brien because you don't really want a fairer society. You are not prepared to work towards a fairer society if it costs you or your children anything. What kind of example are you setting your children do you think? That hypocrisy is ok if you can argue your way around it. It's like selling arms to a country that you know will use them illegally and saying will someone will sell them those weapons, it might as well be us who benefit from it...
Hypocrite.
It's never been fare,, I had 7 brothers & 5 sisters ,1 bread winner. I know that at least 7 of them should have gone too grammar school, but mum & dad couldn't pay for uniforms. " A" stream and top of the class, Top of the school some of them.
I'm not sure about this one! If people have the money, then they should be able to buy a private education for their child if that's their choice. The way to counter the imbalance is to make state schools equally educationally excellent , so there's no disadvantage! Banning it simply forces private education to morph into something else, or go overseas!
Private education is a business.
If a private school isn't successful or popular, it begins to lose pupils and so eventually doesn't make a profit ( even if that profit is called a " surplus" it's still the same thing ) and eventually the school closes unless new owners or managers take over and turn it around. This happens all the time although we rarely hear about it as the private schools that close are usually small and fairly unknown.
The same logic applies to, say, any other service businesses which charge VAT by law.
A private school sells a service so it should pay or collect business taxes just like any other service business.
Thats it.
Is the state school system not already operating at above capacity and putting even more students in an already stressed system is not got make things better/Quality of education will get even worse, and it will be unfair for children who want to learn and put in the hard graft being stuck in classes with children who don’t care. I think public/private schools is one of the few USPs Britain still has and should be kept. But we should be taxing the private/public schools with revenue over a specific threshold is fair but there should be the caveat that it cannot be tagged on to the evermore ridiculous school fees.
All Public Schools should become Academies, some with the ability to raise small fees for specialisations, as long as scholarships are given. Our Private Schools often offer excellent education, it'd be a shame to lose them altogether, but they need to be more accessible for pupils of all backgrounds.
I was brought up in the lower end of things, and learning difficulties would have probably held me back in a private school, though you get better quality of learning in private because you get what you pay
What if we thought about fairness as - improving all school - so we didn’t need private schools! But that’s not the reason private schools exist? It’s all about status and power ! There is no argument for private schools.
By all means have a private school, but no money from the government at all! If they do accept money from the tax payers, it should by law have to follow the national curriculum! You can't have it both ways!
Why would anyone be Envious of kids who are controlled by their parents and put in a bubble and turn them into silly, posh, social climbers with no ability to relate to or function in the real world outside of their small privilege circles.
Just like in state schools you get kids that do extremely well and get to go to higher education and the top unis anyway and kids who mess about or just don't fit into the system for whatever reason and don't do as well in exams etc.
Difference is they don't have a smogasboard of options after school for their adult life, where as the public school 'Joker' still has all those deep high social connections and can even become a politician, Mayor or PM just by being a 'character'.
Because those kids have no realisation that they're 'silly, posh, social climbers with no ability to relate...' Ever heard of the expression 'ignorance is bliss'?
Being fully-aware of the world, as I am, is as often a curse as it is a blessing. Plus, studies have shown that privately-educated kids, who admittedly exist in a bit of a bubble, are endowed with a sense of confidence that the rest of us lack.
What's the point of being aware of everything, and having the full weight of the world on one's shoulders, if it only makes one miserable? Surely it's better to be confident, albeit arrogant and aloof, and successfuly and happy.
The problem is not that some people send their children to private schools per se, the problem is that the the average private school fees are over £20,000 per pupil per per year, and the average spend per pupil in the state sector is less than £8,000 per year. If we spent the same per pupil per year in the state sector as is spent on private school pupils, I don't think I would have any objections to private schools, or at least my objections would not be so severe as to over-ride the "freedom and choice" arguments for allowing them.
The average private school according to mr google is £15k so 3k of vat. £8 a day. If your a high earner which the chances are you are if your kids are in private school its hardly goikg to hurt. Maybe trade in your chelsea tractor for a normal car will save that on the fuel.
complicit in manufacturing consent for personal gain & notoriety. You are a milker of news. you know very well of the realities but will prolong it for viewership's that are payable in cash for views.
Education opportunities to pursue a higher standard should be based on merit alone. And only after the first seven years.
And internships should be illegal with a custodial sentence for any offenders.
Within 10 years we would see then benefits.
Finland has one of the best school systems in the world. One of the reasons is because private schools are banned. Everyone mixes with each other, the rich grow up with the poor and they all look out for each other in later life. By having private schools you are declaring that there are two standards of education and that only the rich are allowed to have the higher standard. A policy like that tells the world that we, as a country, do not want all of our children to be educated to the highest standard. That then raises the question: why? Why do we need the majority to be more uneducated? Because private schools are for politicians, public schools are for the voters who they can easily manipulate.
Finnish kids also start school at 7 not 5, they pay their teachers on par with accountants and lawyers, and only recruit top graduates. It's the gap in the quality of teachers that is the biggest differentiator.
VAT on private schools will also mean the end of the charitable work being done by those schools. Is it fair to those who receive that help? What is the cost of that? Have Labour calculated that?
Like anything paying extra from education or jumping the queue, it is volume and if the percentage was the other way round wouldn't be that great
Doesn't really sound like you think we should abolish private schools. You're not a bad person for sending your kids to private school, but you are deluded to think that is the most moral thing to do.